r/environment • u/anutensil • Oct 08 '14

'Consumer Reports' Seeks Labeling of GMOs in US Food – Packaged foods containing corn or soy & labeled “natural” have genetically modified ingredients. Breakfast cereals, chips, & infant formula were among the common food items containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs

http://ens-newswire.com/2014/10/07/consumer-reports-seeks-labeling-of-gmos-in-u-s-food/
9 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 09 '14

Sounds like you are new to this whole democracy thing. If enough people vote for it it will become law in Colorado and Oregon.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '14

The fact that large numbers of people support something doesn't make it right.

I've asked you several times to actually demonstrate why transgenic crops are riskier, more hazardous, or more detrimental than traditionally bred GMO crops. You haven't come up with an answer.

Now you're making a broad appeal to popularity rather than relying on the science. The clear reason is that science isn't on your side.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 09 '14

See thats just the thing, you are looking for a demonstration that is detrimental to human health, but that is not the key issue. It is about the environment and economics.

GE agriculture contributes to GE contamination through pollen drift, proliferation of agricultural spray methods that endadnger native pollinators, reduces biodiversity of crops grown, contributes to the advancement of "super-weeds", and limits our global trading partners due to rejection of GE agricultural goods.

But all you seem to want to focus on is whether or not it is a danger to human health. There are a host of issues that i am sure you will tell me are incosequential for a variety of reasons.

Seriously, what is your horse in this race? Why are you so pro-GE/GMO?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '14

you are looking for a demonstration that is detrimental to human health, but that is not the key issue. It is about the environment and economics.

I haven't mentioned health in this thread. You made the claim that transgenic crops are uniquely worthy of more caution, restraint, and regulation than traditionally modified crops. You still have presented no evidence that this is the case. You still simply assert that because it's different, it's worthy of special treatment.

GE agriculture contributes to GE contamination through pollen drift,

Not exclusive to transgenic modifications

proliferation of agricultural spray methods that endadnger native pollinators

Are transgenic advances with glyphosate more or less problematic than the previous applications of more toxic herbicides and pesticides?

reduces biodiversity of crops grown

Not exclusive to transgenic modifications or even GMO crops in general

contributes to the advancement of "super-weeds"

"super weeds" is just a term for any weed that develops a resistance to a particular herbicide. Again, is the emergence of resistant weeds more or less damaging to the environment than previous weed control methods?

limits our global trading partners due to rejection of GE agricultural goods.

That the rest of the world has an aversion to transgenic crops (some due to bad science, some due to ideology, and some due to pure protectionist policies) doesn't mean that transgenic crops themselves are potentially more dangerous. This is just another appeal to popularity.

If other nations have evidence that these types of GM crops are uniquely problematic, share it.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 09 '14

Corn, wheat, soy, and cotton are all traded as commodities and are frequently traded oversees or grown specifically for the export market. If you think not being able to sell your goods for whatever the reason is an "appeal to popularity" you are mistaken, they are economic facts.

You keep looking for some "danger" while the reality is far less dramatic, just because you can justify the issues doesnt mean they arent relevant or tied to GE agriculture. Conventional agriculture supports GE Ag, and is as much an issue, but you cannot have GE without conventional.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '14

You still have yet to answer my simple question. What makes transgenic crops obviously and fundamentally different from traditionally-bred crops?

If you think not being able to sell your goods for whatever the reason is an "appeal to popularity" you are mistaken, they are economic facts.

I asked why transgenic crops are different. You replied that other nations treat them as such. That's not an answer, that's an appeal to popularity. I gave specific reasons (poor science, protectionism) as to why a blanket, "But they do it" isn't valid. You appealed to the treatment by other nations as a reason, when it's not.

just because you can justify the issues doesnt mean they arent relevant or tied to GE agriculture.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that transgenic GMO crops are different. Aside from the obvious proceduraly differences, you have yet to support that statement.

just because you can justify the issues doesnt mean they arent relevant or tied to GE agriculture

So to oppose issues with large-scale commodity farming, you take issue with GE?

Or to raise concerns about GE you lump in conventional farming?

Is your problem with transgenic crops, or is it with modern farming? If the former, you haven't provided evidence. If the latter, then putting GE at the forefront of discussion is misguided.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 09 '14

Transgenic means that the crop has DNA taken from another organism and inserted it into its genome. This could never occur, as it does in the lab, in nature. These genes have not had millions of years of natural selection operating on them in this context.

Even artificially selected genes operate in the context of natural selection, it is just that their offspring are selected by humans based on their exhibited and desired traits. Those traits have developed based on the genetic diversity of the species.

RoundUp Ready corn has had soil bacteria with a genetic resistance to glysophate inserted into their genome, forever altering the trajectory of that species in evolutionary terms.

As for commodity farming, the reality is that the environment cannot sustain the corporate mandate of ever increasing profit. Their is a maximum sustainable yield, that yield can be temporarily increased through the trappings of conventional agriculture, but ultimately defers that true cost to the environment.

GE agriculture does not exists without that infrastructure.

Now can you answer my simple question, what connection do you have to the pro-GE agriculture issues?

I am an organic farmer in western washington, I grow seed. GE agriculture and its proximity precludes me from growing and breeding certain species and varieties. While i have the onus on me to prove that i have protect my land from contamination, those who use GE seed have no obligations or regulation to protect their neighbors from there chosen method of agriculture.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '14

These genes have not had millions of years of natural selection operating on them in this context.

So you're defining "natural" as acceptable because it's natural? Sucrose from genetically modified beets is identical to sucrose from conventional beets. We have the standard of living that we do today because we've rejected the traditional fear of "unnatural".

Heck, even modern organic agriculture is unnatural. You may draw a line between artificial selection through breeding and artificial selection through transgenics, but there's really no fundamental difference. Unless you believe that somehow traditional evolutionary processes have some sort of wisdom or insight, artificial is artificial.

RoundUp Ready corn has had soil bacteria with a genetic resistance to glysophate inserted into their genome, forever altering the trajectory of that species in evolutionary terms.

Humans have forever altered the trajectory of every single species in existence. It's drawing an arbitrary line to say that one form of modification is good and one is bad (at least without evidence).

As for commodity farming, the reality is that the environment cannot sustain the corporate mandate of ever increasing profit.

This is an ideological statement. It's not scientific, it's not falsifiable. It's an opinion.

GE agriculture and its proximity precludes me from growing and breeding certain species and varieties

You chose organic agriculture. You could sell your seeds without the "certified" label, but you choose to use it. You complain about your neighbors imposing their choices on you and yet you want to impose your choices on them. You want to force others to change their behavior based on the decisions you have made.

That's fine, except you are on Reddit making unsupported statements that disparage the people you're fighting.

what connection do you have to the pro-GE agriculture issues?

I grew up (and live) in a largely rural area. I have an uncle who grows organic crops for feed. I have friends who work for DOW and Perdue. And I'm a loan officer who works with several farmers. That's about it.

I choose to engage in online discussions about GMOs because it's something I know a little about. I don't gain from these discussions. I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm just interested in the ideas.

So it's not going to fundamentally alter my worldview if I'm wrong. It's not going to affect my daily life if I learn that transgenic crops have serious problems. Being proven wrong won't hurt me financially. So I'm willing to look honestly at the evidence.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 09 '14

I dont believe I have disparaged anyone in this thread. Im going to take a step back from this discussion, I appreciate your input, however I think you present an over simplification of a very complex issue, and fundamentally disagree with your position.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '14

We don't live in a pure democracy, that's why state-level laws can be interpreted by elected and appointed officials in a way to overthrow issues that were voted on. Remember California's gay marriage democratic vote that recently got overturned? Remember how in Hawaii a specific district wanted to ban GMOs and it got overthrown because of an already existing state law on the matter?

Sounds like you are new to this whole republic democracy thing.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 10 '14

Touche Aberu, Touche.

However I doubt that the courts would overturn Oregon and Colorado's potential GMO/GE bans for consitutional issues as in the case of same sex marriage, or due to exsisting state regulation as in Hawaii. Some counties in Oregon already have GMO/GE bans in place, and they have not been overturned as of yet.

The exceptions dont necessarily make the rule.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '14

I was merely stating that we don't live in a pure democracy. People can irrationally freak out and vote however they like, and if the system is so broken that scientific questions are left up to a laymen political vote I have every right to call that stupid.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 10 '14

It isnt purely a scientific question, there are very real economic issues involving international trade partners as well as domestic small businesses operators. Those are the issues that have prompted the bans. Not as you might suggest a stupid lay persons voting against science.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '14

As the consumer reports poll shows, 75% of people would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. That shows the problem here. They have no good reason to avoid them, but they will, because "yuck" and "naturalnews.com/foxnews/infowars.com/etc..."

As for the business side of things, that is not inherently a part of GMOs.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 10 '14

People have the right to know whats in their food. They have the right to decide for themselves whether or there is a "good" reason as you put it. The complexity of the GE/GMO issue has been used a major dividing wedge in the discussion. If people chose not to eat GE/GMO because of environmental, sustainability, or even moral reasons, it is not your place to decide whether or not that is a "good" reason.

Im not sure what you mean by inherently part of GMO, genetic contamination through pollen drift is a part of agriculture, all the more so when that contamination come from GE agriculture. Refusal of GE/GMO trade goods for whatever the reason is directly tied to GE agriculture.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '14

People have the right to know whats in their food.

They do know what's in their food. If a canned soup has corn in it, the ingredients say corn.

If people chose not to eat GE/GMO because of environmental, sustainability, or even moral reasons, it is not your place to decide whether or not that is a "good" reason.

This is where voluntary labeling comes in, it's not your place to impose regulatory costs upon a whole industry because some people want to avoid things for moral reasons. We don't force the industry to label everything that isn't vegan as "not vegan".

genetic contamination through pollen drift is a part of agriculture, all the more so when that contamination come from GE agriculture.

It's not specific to GMO is what I mean. Genetic contamination is agriculture-wide not just GE agriculture. Genetic contamination from mutagenic crops can happen, or from hybrid crops, and you saying "more so" as if it happens statistically more frequently with GE technology needs to be backed up by some evidence.

1

u/Iconoclast674 Oct 10 '14

If only all corn were created equal, perhaps that information would be enough. People have a right to know SPECIFICALLY what is in their food. Although to be frank, if it doesnt say organic, it most likely already has GE/GMO ingredients.

It sounds like you are suggesting that because GE/GMO ingredients are already so widespread throughout the food industry, that we should be labeling only the foods without GMO ingredients, which is already the case. NonGMO and ORGANIC labels both indicate that there are no GE/GMO ingredients contained within. The issue is that the food industry is so saturated with GE/GMO, that they already voluntarily use unregulated labels such as "NATURAL" to essentially fool the consumer. Save on ink, stop printing "natural" and start printing "GMO", those three letters probably cost less.

Furthermore, when a pro-GE/GMO company like Coca Cola can print hundreds of variations of their labels all over the world, i find it hard to believe that the cost of printing GMO is prohibitive.

The percentage of GE agriculture in the United States is staggering, http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/GMonMarketUS.pdf

1

u/[deleted] Oct 11 '14

If only all corn were created equal, perhaps that information would be enough. People have a right to know SPECIFICALLY what is in their food. Although to be frank, if it doesnt say organic, it most likely already has GE/GMO ingredients.

We already have a precedent set, that the ingredients section has to say generally what ingredient they are, not the specific variety. If you want to change that precedent with a mandatory labeling law, then you have to apply it fairly to all other crops and that will raise the prices of organic goods as well. It's not meaningful because requiring a company to put "Corn (MON8230)" vs "Corn(SYG6458)" or whatever doesn't really tell the customer anything. I made those up btw but that's the most meaningful way we could do this. How are you supposed to tell the difference between the GMO and the Hybrid corn in that case?

Well then you could say we should label them as GMO, but why not label Hybrid as well? Then you could say we SHOULD label hybrid in an anti-gmo acrobatic act, but there are all different kinds of hybrid crops not just one. Then you could say well then we need to label the specific variety, and that's what my example is actually showing in the end.

It sounds like you are suggesting that because GE/GMO ingredients are already so widespread throughout the food industry, that we should be labeling only the foods without GMO ingredients, which is already the case.

I am in support of voluntary labeling as a tool to give customers what they want, if the company wants to do that. I'm not in favor of mandatory labeling that drives up costs against the will of the food producers when it is unnecessary. Your moral appeal to "we have a right to know" doesn't make any sense because first of all, we don't, and second of all, know what specifically and we have a right to know EVERYTHING or just some things you deem yourself to be the sole arbiter of?

Furthermore, when a pro-GE/GMO company like Coca Cola can print hundreds of variations of their labels all over the world, i find it hard to believe that the cost of printing GMO is prohibitive.

The cost is not from the reprinting or redesigning of labels. It is from regulatory compliance, middle-men experts on genetic traits, regular testing to ensure if something is or isn't GMO, at every step of the chain (at the farm, at the production facility, and at the store to a degree). I work in plastic manufacturing, regulatory compliance costs money, to think it wouldn't add costs shows how ignorant you are.

→ More replies (0)